"A passing cop pulled a u-turn, flashed the lights, and rolled up behind her. Tarantino claims that the cop immediately drew his weapon, pulled her from the car, and refused to explain why he pulled her over ... Then, in a gruesome twist, a female officer 'forcibly removed' a tampon from Tarantino." She's suing.

45 Responses to “Police pull over woman for rolling through stop sign then strip search her and "forcibly" pull tampon out of her, lawsuit alleges”

  1. zartan says:

    Obviously I’m not condoning this if it is accurate, but this same woman was apparently arrested less than a month prior on a DUI

    http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Leila_Tarantino_5602273/ 

    • EH says:

      Ah, the old vodka-tampon schtick.

    • eeyore says:

      And that matters why?  The law – including the 4th amendment – still applies to everyone – even people who have been arrested for ( or convicted of) a crime.  

      • zartan says:

        It matters because the story is phrased in a way that makes the police actions seem like they just came out of the blue to a mother whose only transgression was rolling through a stop sign.  When in fact the police may have been familiar with her.

        Again I’m not condoning the actions of the police if true, I’m just saying that there may be more to the story than the allegations put forward in this woman’s law suit.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          I’m just saying that there may be more to the story than the allegations put forward in this woman’s law suit.

          Please don’t suggest that the victim “had it coming” in a civil liberties/human rights thread unless you have some evidence to support your claim.
          http://boingboing.net/2009/10/01/commenting.html

          • zartan says:

            When there is a post about TSA misconduct, invariably the victim is described (edit – perfect example here http://boingboing.net/2012/08/10/virgin-airlines-australia-move.html ).  The 4 year old boy, or the grandmother, or the cancer patient, or the guy wearing a t-shirt with an anarchy sign on it, or whoever.  Information about the victim gives us context for evaluating the situation.  This context doesn’t excuse or justify the TSA’s actions; it simply gives us context.  I think it is safe to say that many of us, reasonably, view TSA misconduct towards a small child somewhat differently than we might view TSA misconduct towards an inebriated businessman who fails to comply with their requests.  Misconduct by authorities is analog, and runs along a spectrum from North Korea-type sudden and permanent disappearance of dissidents to isolated corruption in a city’s vice unit.

            The same situation, in reverse, is why I feel it is relevant to note that this individual has had multiple similar run-ins with this police department.  This does not excuse misconduct; far from it.  In fact, I’d guess (from watching plenty of episodes of ‘Cops’) that someone’s notoriety from past run-ins with law enforcement may lead to a greater likelihood of violating their civil rights.  The police may view her as having less credibility, and therefore be more apt to treat her poorly than they would someone with a clean record.  In that sense, my pointing out her record might ADD further plausibility to the notion that the police might treat her poorly as a result of assuming she lacks credibility and can therefore be abused – quite the opposite of blaming the victim.

            Just want to emphasize that I don’t think context about the relationship between the victim of abusive police action and the authorities amounts to blaming the victim.  That said, it’s your blog, so obviously if you want to hold me to a different standard, that’s your prerogative, and I won’t post on this thread again.

          • cegev says:

            That’s a good policy, and I agree that it isn’t appropriate to say that the plaintiff here had this coming.

            However, it’s also inappropriate to repeat the claim that she was stopped for rolling through a stop sign. The plaintiff doesn’t claim this anywhere in her complaint, and there’s no evidence that she was. She only notes that she made a full stop, and that police refused to explain why she was stopped. The citation she finally received was for violating restrictions on her license, not rolling through a stop sign.

            Would it be possible to get this changed in the title and summary? Right now the story does unfairly make it seem like the plaintiff is fabricating things, because a major part of the headline is something that she appears to have never claimed.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      Someone with the same name and b-day has been arrested many times for DUI, driving w/out license, domestic battery and charges unknown according to the database you link. 

      However, even if known to police and even if acting batshit crazy, it is hard to picture the circumstance where a strip search including cavities could possibly be warranted alongside the road. It just can’t be. If she were super belligerent or abusive to the officer, let them arrest and take their chances with the charges, if a strip search is necessary then a facility with trained personnel has got to be the place for it.

    • travtastic says:

      Oh, that’s super pertinent!

  2. Ashen Victor says:

    Obviously the female officer was puzzled by the dangling cotton string in suspect´s “v-jean”: “What the hell is that thing?” 

  3. cellocgw says:

    Goodness – OT, but: what twisted algorithm decided I wanted to see a banner ad for Christian singles online dating?  The only thing I can imagine is that I used the word “Christian” in some rant recently in the BB forums. Maybe.
    Meanwhile:  after all, you never know when seemingly innocent tampon could be a bomb, or maybe contain kiddie porn.  Better safe than sorry.

  4. Slobodan Tabakovich says:

    There was blood everywhere!

  5. bo1n6bo1n6 says:

    Did she keep it for evidence?

  6. royaltrux says:

    Did a bunch of confetti burst out of the top of her head?

  7. Oren Beck says:

    There is more going on here.  It defies sanity on so many levels. And declaring this a false accusation is stupidly into victim blaming.  From that?   I so want/ hope that  it was the least evil – an individual “”Rogue Cop” misusing their authority to a nauseating degree.  But, the risk of it being a departmental or higher policy order is too grim to ignore.

    It’s no secret we have people in our world that consider such events as good things.  There’s also the greater FAIL of this being handwaved away as somehow “her” fault.  Frankly- I do NOT see any woman falsifying this sort of thing.

    • TheNefilim says:

      A woman with multiple DWIs, driving without a license  and domestic violence arrests.

      Has it occurred to you the woman may well have some serious substance abuse/mental issues and may well have made it up  or imagined it?

      • eeyore says:

        Again!   That makes it okay to strip and cavity search her on the side of the road why?  

        There is NO case where that is the appropriate course of action.  The appropriate course of action would have been to take her into custody, restrain her if it was required, and then either take her to jail or for medical treatment as the situation demanded.  

        The role of law enforcement is to enforce the law, not to humiliate, degrade ( and potentially assault ) citizens – even stupid ones or criminals. 

        • Cleo says:

          “Maybe she fabricated the strip-and-cavity-search story due to mental issues.”
          “Just because she has mental issues doesn’t give them a right to do a strip-and-cavity-search!”

          Granted it seems unlikely that the story is wholly fabricated, but your response makes no sense in context.

      • stenz says:

        Has it occurred to you that the police knew her (assumed) record and used it as an excuse to abuse her, knowing that they would be believed instead of her?

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Making the same comment five times isn’t a valid contribution to this thread, so I’ve removed four of them.

        • stenz says:

           May be OT, but I’ve been wondering lately what causes commenting to be closed on an article?  (If it is OT, please feel free to ignore, delete, or tell me to take it to email [but who?!])

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            It depends.  Very few threads make it to 200 comments without turning into the same handful of people hissing and face-biting.

        • Marja Erwin says:

          Given that it’s victim-blaming, I’d suggest removing all five.

      • Oren Beck says:

         I’m stopping short of flagging you for trolling. 

        There’s not many women *I* ever met that would falsify such a thing and the numerous witnesses that potentially saw this- nope- rather unlikely to be fabricated.

        Do please keep the tone respectful and DO NOT be a blatant victim blamer. Karma is not to be teased.

      • rattypilgrim says:

         This used to be what they called “A Nation of Laws”. It was a very simple concept: laws were made to protect society, assure a person was innocent until proven guilty, and the laws applied to everyone (at least in theory).

        There is absolutely no excuse for treating a suspect the way this police force did (with eyewitnesses, no less). No excuses.

        I’m going out on a limb here and guess you’re a white male and are oblivious to the abuse people of color, women, the handicapped, etc. are often subjected to by police who become judge and jury in their own minds.

  8. Reg Robson says:

    Exercise for the reader: What would you need to suspect a person of to treat them like this?

    For example if she gets out of the car yelling “there is a bomb in my genitalia!” then maybe you might have reason to do this.

    Now, assuming she didn’t do anything to warrant this treatment: how out of your mind do you have to be do this to a another person?

  9. TheNefilim says:

    I see all my comments are being removed.

    Nice to know how well dissenting from the party line is tolerated here. 

  10. Dignan says:

    She could have been hiding marijuana up in her cooch, so on that suspicion alone I’m sure this was completely justified. 

  11. Amelia_G says:

    This level of harassment reminds me of a trailer, probably not the film-in-itself but definitely the trailer, I saw before the Hunger Games last night.
    “Compliance”?
    It appears Wikipedia has a relevant article or two:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search_prank_call_scam

  12. cegev says:

    The comments here are quite dismaying. On one extreme, there are a few people saying that the matter was probably fabricated, or pointing out previous interactions the plaintiff may have had with the police. On the other side, there are a few people saying that no person would ever falsify these allegations, and insisting that this is either a single evil police officer or some sort of overarching policy of oppression, with some also adding that the matter could not be falsified because there were eyewitnesses.

    Neither is appropriate in this case. The only information we have about the situation is an initial complaint in a lawsuit. There is no response from the defendants, and none of the supporting evidence on either side is there yet.

    It is not right to assume that the plaintiff is fabricating anything. It is also not right to assume that the police did anything wrong, or that the claims made by the plaintiff are true. That’s the point of the lawsuit. During the case, evidence will be provided by both sides, and the matter can be decided fairly, rather than through the opinions of uninformed internet commentators.

    The claims made by the plaintiff should be matters that will have abundant evidence. If the plaintiff did falsify the claims, especially points 8-13 (approach with drawn gun, ordering out of vehicle, handcuffing, no response to questions, children in car, two hour detention) and part of 14 (strip search in plain view, not necessarily forced tampon removal), then police cameras should provide ample evidence of that. One of the major reasons for such cameras is to combat false accusations. One the other hand, the footage could easily show the incident. It’s also very likely that there were eyewitnesses driving by who could at least confirm parts of the claims, especially if the footage were “lost”—something that, as this is a civil case, would probably not help the police the same way it might in a criminal case. There will be a jury, and that jury will hopefully decide this matter fairly.

    At this point in time, it is simply not appropriate to make assumptions either way. In my view, unless this case appeared to be a case where the courts were not working, it was inappropriate for this to be presented as new. If the footage of the incident had been “lost,” then it would have been much more appropriate as a news item. I look forward, however, to hearing about the evidence in this case in a future post here.

    It is worth correcting, however, one minor point: the plaintiff did not receive a citation for rolling through a stop sign. She “received a citation for violating restrictions on her driver’s license.” The restrictions are not described. Unless I am missing something, the plaintiff does not claim to have been stopped for rolling through a stop sign, and that appears to have been a mistake on the part of the original blog post.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      Given her very recent past arrest for DUI and driving with a suspended license it would be the plaintiff attorney doing a fine job of saying she was cited for driving with a revoked or suspended license, as both revocation and suspension are restrictions pertaining to the license that is still valid identification and a record of her registration with whatever DMV issued the license.

  13. John Ohno says:

    Is it just me, or does this sound like something the other Tarantino would write?

  14. DaveVonNatick says:

    Perhaps the car’s real driver was hidden in her Vajayjay.

  15. hymenopterid says:

    I must have missed that part in the Bill of Rights where it says a previous arrest constitutes a forfeiture of your Fourth Amendment rights.

  16. hymenopterid says:

    At no point did I assume she’s telling the truth.  Only that she has a right to be heard. Let the evidence come out in a court of law.

  17. TheNefilim says:

    You’re very comment about “ a forfeiture of your Fourth Amendment rights.” assumes she is telling the truth and her rights were violated.

    I never said she deserved to be treated like that, I said I had my doubts given the evidence, (or lack thereof) and her history that it happened at all and I’m somewhat astounded that so many people are willing to believe it without a shred of proof, especially from somebody with her history.

  18. stenz says:

     Why?  She was given a citation.  She wasn’t under the influence at the time, or she would have been arrested.  She wasn’t suffering from an altered level of consciousness, or they never would have allowed her to drive off with her kids.  Women will sometimes be arrested for DV if the male shows wounds from the woman defending herself, so her DV arrest history isn’t relevant. 

    So yes, as a person of the Internet, I would believe her over the cops.

    Also, you seem too invested in this one particular lawsuit.  Friend of the accused?

  19. Reg Robson says:

     Exactly, it just as probably happened. Which is not a good statement about law enforcement.

Leave a Reply